Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hackett v. Bus

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

February 23, 2016

CLIFFORD RAY HACKETT, Plaintiff,
v.
RED GUAHAN BUS, Defendant.

          ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE BY FAX AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO SERVE PARTIES ELECTRONICALLY; FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT THE DISTRICT COURT DENY PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES AND DISMISS THE COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND[1]

          RICHARD L. PUGLISI, Magistrate Judge.

         On February 16, 2016, Plaintiff Clifford Ray Hackett filed a document entitled "Motions" asking for "free process, " leave to file by fax, and leave to serve parties electronically. ECF No. 2. Although Plaintiff refers to a request for "free process, " the Court construes Plaintiff's request as an application to proceed without prepayment of fees. The Court finds these matters suitable for disposition without a hearing pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(d). For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request for leave to file by fax, DENIES Plaintiff's request for leave to serve parties electronically, and FINDS AND RECOMMENDS that the district court DENY Plaintiff's application to proceed without prepayment of fees and DISMISS his Complaint with leave to amend.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff's Complaint, filed February 16, 2016, alleges that Defendant Red Guahan Bus violated the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., by "failing to add wheelchair lifts" and preventing access to disabled persons. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff indicates that he is a United States citizen and his mailing address is in Hawaii. Id . Plaintiff alleges that Defendant "owns a commercial business worldwide." Id . Plaintiff's Complaint lists Defendant's mailing address as 117 Guerrero St. Tamuning, Guam. Id . Plaintiff subsequently filed the instant requests seeking leave to proceed without prepayment of fees, file by fax, and serve parties electronically. ECF No. 2.

         DISCUSSION

         I. Plaintiff's Request for Leave to File by Fax is GRANTED.

         Plaintiff requests leave to file by fax as a reasonable accommodation due to the fact that he is deaf and blind. ECF No. 2. The Court finds that Plaintiff has shown good cause for this accommodation and GRANTS Plaintiff's request for leave to file by fax.

         For each fax filing, Plaintiff must include a separate cover sheet that states the case name, the docket number, the title of the attached filing, and the number of pages faxed. Plaintiff must also comply with the requirements of Local Rule 10.2.

         II. Plaintiff's Request for Leave to Serve Parties Electronically is DENIED.

         Plaintiff further requests leave to serve parties electronically as a reasonable accommodation. ECF No. 2. Local Rule 100.2.2(1) provides that "[a]ny person appearing pro se may not utilize electronic filing without leave of the court, which decision rests in the discretion of the assigned district or magistrate judge." LR100.2.2(1). Plaintiff does not make any argument or provide any information supporting his request for leave to serve parties electronically. ECF No. 2. The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for the Court to exercise its discretion under Local Rule 100.2.2(1) and therefore DENIES Plaintiff's request for leave to serve parties electronically.

         III. The Court FINDS AND RECOMMENDS That the District Court DENY Plaintiff's Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and DISMISS Plaintiff's Complaint With Leave to Amend.

         Courts may authorize the commencement of any suit without prepayment of fees by a person who submits an affidavit that the person is unable to pay such fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The Court must subject each civil action commenced pursuant to Section 1915(a) to mandatory screening and order the dismissal of any claim that it finds frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) "not only permits but requires" the court to dismiss a § 1915(a) complaint that fails to state a claim); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners).

         Additionally, the court may dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dep't, 530 F.3d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir. 2008). Rule 8 requires that a complaint contain "a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1). Rule 8 also requires that a complaint include "a short and plain statement of the claim" and that each allegation "be simple, concise, and direct." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), (d)(1). A plaintiff must allege "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.